Saturday, 30 May 2009

‘Value And Embrace Us!’

Gary Nunn, Stonewall's communications officer, has a post in ‘CiF’ to outline the fakecharity’s plans for the future:

Gay equality campaigning is about to change direction. This month marks two decades since Stonewall was first founded – and heralds a new era in the recent history of rapid advances towards lesbian, gay and bisexual equality. So Stonewall's focus shifts from changing the law to changing social attitudes.

Some would say you’ve got that a little backwards, Gary…

The law has changed, but society needs to catch up.

The law is a pretty blunt instrument, and not guaranteed to effect that ‘societal change’ that you seem to be looking for if it is regarded by the public as yet another special interest group’s attempt at ‘special pleading’.

It's the next 20 years that hold the bigger challenges. If passed, the new equality bill will signal a book-end to this unprecedented legislative revolution and close the first chapter on the journey towards equality. The second chapter – changing the wider world – will be far tougher. Stonewall and our allies will need to work harder than ever in the years ahead before we can truly declare Britain's 3.6 million lesbian and gay people to be fully equal.

People’s attitudes have changed remarkably in the last 20 years, despite the fevered claims of ‘homophobia’ in the article, backed up by examples of the kind of nastiness that is faced by almost anyone at the hands of lawless thugs in these 'progressive' times. In what way are they not ‘fully equal’ now, as far as employment protection, etc?

Only, it seems, in the sense that they are now (as with other defined victim groups) ‘more equal than others’.

Indeed, there’s even ‘hate crime’ legislation on the statute books, whereby if you are beaten or verbally abused because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time by a feral thug, while two streets over, your gay brother is beaten or abused by another feral thug, that is considered somehow worse and attracts a higher penalty. Even if both your bruises take the same time to heal...

So it’s not really ‘equality’ that you seem to want, is it? Or you'd campaign for the rights of all people to walk the street unmolested by feral thugs, whether gay, straight, or indifferent.

And it seems Stonewall have figured out that the MPs aren’t the only ones making policy these days:

In the next two decades, Stonewall will begin to move away from lobbying. We'll find creative ways to work more with GPs than MPs, more with teachers than with ministers, and more with secretaries in workplaces than secretaries of state – so that all local communities and organisations keep equality at the core of everything they do.

This'll mean that – from Westminster to Weston-super-Mare – lesbian, gay and bisexual people will not be merely tolerated, or even just accepted.

They'll be valued and embraced.

Not by force of law or threat of legislation, they won’t. You cannot force people to accept and 'celebrate' alternative lifestyles by threatening them with the law.

You will get, at most, grudging acquiescence, and at worst, bitter hatred and a deepening desire to thwart the rules.

Is that really what you want? To cement the entrenched attitudes you claim to campaign against?

16 comments:

Couldn't agree more. They've got free speech they don't approve of turned into hate speech, which is thought crime in all but name. If they really want mainstream acceptance, or at minimum tolerance, they'd help their cause best by shutting the fuck up (and quietly opening a gay pub in Canterbury ;-) ).

Personally I've always despised groups like Stonewall and Outrage not because they're mainly gay and were for equal rights for gays, but because they spent a lot of time in their early days outing gay people against their will. That was a shitty thing to do and demonstrates that they're all about the agenda rather than people.

"Personally I've always despised groups like Stonewall and Outrage not because they're mainly gay and were for equal rights for gays, but because they spent a lot of time in their early days outing gay people against their will."

When your 'friends' are indistingishable by their actions from your enemies, you know you're in trouble...

"Nice to see that Gary managed to write his entire piece without once mentioning 'Transgender'."

Precisely! The problem with identity politics in a nutshell: "You! Hey, you! What are you doing in our group? Go form your own!"

Wheras arguing for all human beings to simply have the same rights and responsibilities, and freedom from violence, as anyone else? Obviously, just crazy talk...

I take much the same attitude towards Stonewall and Outrage as AE and for the same reason. frankly, given that homosexuality is no longer a criminal offence in the UK, there is no reason for their continued existence.

If they approached me in the course of my work to gain my "embrace" for their lifestyle, they would receive a rather sharp rejoinder. I take no interest in other peoples' sexuality; I don't ask and I don't want to know as it is a personal and private matter. I keep mine to myself, I expect others to do likewise in my presence. I treat each individual as I find them. No one should expect anything else.

I wonder where this 3.6 million figure comes from. 6% of the population - more if the calculation is restricted to the sexually mature. Sounds like somebody's been cherry-picking the Kinsey Reports again.

As I've said before, I'm with Mrs Patrick Campbell on the subject of homosexualists. If they leave me alone, I will do them the same courtesy. They have no right to demand my approbation as well.

As to "embracing" them, if any bleedin' iron tries to value and embrace me the next time I'm walking down Dean Street minding my own business, he'll get more than than a "sharp rejoinder".

Methinks this is about Stonewall trying to find itself a new role. Its legitimate campaign is essentially won and this single-issue campaigning organization is largely redundant. Stonewall and its ilk should be disbanded or mothballed. Instead Gary Nunn and his oppos do not want to give up their cushy little berth and are inventing new grievances ex nihilo to "justify" the continuation of their congenial employment.

I think you're right - forcing law changes before gaining the implied acceptance (as opposed to tolerance) will tend to make people more resistant in their social attitudes. You can not counter discrimination by enforcing reverse-discrimination - you'll entrench it.

I could not exactly tell from this article whether you were denying culture altogether or denying that Britain has a homophobic culture.

I would say that you would be a fool to came that the latter has not becoming decreasingly true in recent years, but to claim outright that there isn't any gay hatred seems folly to me.

Whether this can be dealt with through legislation is entirely another matter, but you will note that Stonewall's campaigns are mainly aimed at society as a whole, rather than our legislature. I don't know whether they've been effective, but they don't operate largely as a lobby group. Their main action is as social reformers.

If you don't think that social reformers ever succeed then you know precious little about history. As I said, I haven't studied them enough to know whether any part of the aforementioned diminishment in homophobia in this country was their doing. But I wouldn't write off them getting anywhere, nor use that non-sensical trope stolen from idiot libertarians that anyone trying to do anything must be a statist popinjay out to enslave us all.

Like Edwin Greenwood, I'm bemused by the figure of 3.6 million gays spouted by the Stonewall man in this article.In my view it only makes sense if homosexual activism is viewed as a form of transferred nationalism. As Orwell noted, a characteristic of nationalist ideologues is obsession; in gay rights activists this usually exhibits itself in optimistic projections about the size of the 'community' they purport to represent.

James, I think you misunderstand the position of most conservatives - well, this one anyway!

As a rule we are not in favour of discriminating against homosexuals (or any other "group") but we're not in favour of discriminating FOR homosexuals (or any other "group").

My personal argument is that you can not and should not legislate against or for discrimination as that will actually increase peoples resistance to accepting social reform.

Conservatives understand that social reform is not something that can be hurried along by badly conceived and enacted legislation, but through slow evolutionary progress over many years.

Progressives don't get this. They think they can make everyone see their point of view not by persuasion, but by legislation - and instantly. As a principle it is dubious at best and potentially dangerous at worst.

Apologies if I'm misrepresenting the views of other conservatives - these are my own personal opinions.

"...but to claim outright that there isn't any gay hatred seems folly to me.I hadn't noticed that anyone has. And, frankly, so what? There will always be people who hate other people for one reason or another. Providing they don't go out and indulge in violence, that is their prerogative. We do not need special interest groups telling us what we should think (and the more they do, the more inclined I become to tell them to fuck off and mind their own business). We can manage that perfectly well for ourselves. Stonewall and Outrage have outlived their usefulness. Most people in my experience are tolerant of homosexuality - that is all that gay people have any right to expect. Stan's comment says it all - no discrimination against and no favours for any particular special interest group.

Homosexuals are not special, they do not require embracing or valuing - they are ordinary people just as the rest of us are - nothing more, nothing less and I will treat each as I find him on individual merit. What I will not do is "value" or "embrace" their sexuality no matter what interfering busybodies such as Gary Nunn would have me do, because I don't value it.

I was once dumped by a bird for a guy who was a member of his univerisy LGBTW* society. He was an utter Scrote on more levels than the Burj Dubai has.

He's now a Human Right's lawyer.

Anyway. It's all just a big pink barrel of pork and snouting. Of course there will always by thugs who'll beat up gays for being gay but there is perfect equality in the laws from time immemorial for that. Things like ABH and GBH. Anyway what if some Muslims stone a queer? It's a tricky issue as to who's human rights trump whose. Queue more snouting.